Personalised Exercise-Rehabilitation FOR people with Multiple long-term conditions (PERFORM) is a research programme that seeks to develop and evaluate a comprehensive exercise-based rehabilitation intervention designed for people with multimorbidity, the presence of multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs). This paper describes the protocol for a randomised trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the PERFORM intervention, study design and processes.

A multicentre, parallel two-group randomised trial with individual 2:1 allocation to the PERFORM exercise-based intervention plus usual care (intervention) or usual care alone (control). The primary outcome of this feasibility trial will be to assess whether prespecified progression criteria (recruitment, retention, intervention adherence) are met to progress to the full randomised trial. The trial will be conducted across three UK sites and 60 people with MLTCs, defined as two or more LTCs, with at least one having evidence of the beneficial effect of exercise. The PERFORM intervention comprises an 8-week (twice a week for 6 weeks and once a week for 2 weeks) supervised rehabilitation programme of personalised exercise training and self-management education delivered by trained healthcare professionals followed by two maintenance sessions. Trial participants will be recruited over a 4.5-month period, and outcomes assessed at baseline (prerandomisation) and 3 months postrandomisation and include health-related quality of life, psychological well-being, symptom burden, frailty, exercise capacity, physical activity, sleep, cognition and serious adverse events. A mixed-methods process evaluation will assess acceptability, feasibility and fidelity of intervention delivery and feasibility of trial processes. An economic evaluation will assess the feasibility of data collection and estimate the costs of the PERFORM intervention.

The trial has been given favourable opinion by the West Midlands, Edgbaston Research Ethics Service (Ref: 23/WM/0057). Participants will be asked to give full, written consent to take part by trained researchers. Findings will be disseminated via journals, presentations and targeted communications to clinicians, commissioners, service users and patients and the public.

ISRCTN68786622.

2.0 (16 May 2023).

Paramedics are often first providers of care to patients experiencing non-traumatic low back pain (LBP), though their perspectives and experiences with managing these cases remain unclear.

This study explored paramedic views of the management of non-traumatic LBP including their role and experience with LBP management, barriers to referral and awareness of ambulance service guidelines.

Qualitative study using semistructured interviews conducted between January and April 2023.

New South Wales Ambulance service.

A purposive sample of 30 paramedics of different specialities employed by New South Wales Ambulance were recruited.

Paramedic accounts demonstrated the complexity, challenge, frustration and reward associated with managing non-traumatic LBP. Paramedics perceived that their primary role focused on the assessment of LBP, and that calls to ambulance services were often driven by misconceptions surrounding the management of LBP, and a person’s pain severity. Access to health services, patient factors, defensive medicine, paramedic training and education and knowledge of guidelines influenced paramedic management of LBP.

Paramedics often provide care to non-traumatic LBP cases yet depending on the type of paramedic speciality find these cases to be frustrating, challenging or rewarding to manage due to barriers to referral including access to health services, location, patient factors and uncertainty relating to litigation. Future research should explore patient perspectives towards ambulance service use for the management of their LBP.

It has been shown that mental health education can support positive attitudes of health profession students towards people with mental health challenges, which supports them to provide optimal healthcare to this group. There are many different approaches to designing and delivering mental health education to health profession students. Each has their own advantages and disadvantages, and often mental health education programmes incorporate a multimodal approach in order to reap the benefits of a variety of teaching and learning approaches. The aim of this study is to understand the current landscape of teaching and learning approaches to mental health education for undergraduate health profession students. We will examine the features of successful outcomes for health profession students for:

For this, a realist synthesis has been chosen in order to review the literature. Realist synthesis lends itself to the review of complex interventions such as mental health education for undergraduate health profession curricula because it seeks to uncover the range of different mechanisms and context configurations that produce different outcomes. Health profession education and education practice, in general, is complex. A patient and public involvement (PPI) group is involved throughout this study and includes undergraduate health profession students, and members of the St John of Gods Hospital Consumers and Carers Council who are involved at every stage of the research. This study will engage with a stakeholder group who will support the refining of the programme theory.

Ethical approval has been sought and approved by Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland Ethical Committee (REC number: 212622783). We will aim to write up and publish the full synthesis as a journal article. We will also discuss ways of dissemination outside of academia with our PPI group.

The QCovid 2 and 3 algorithms are risk prediction tools developed during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic that can be used to predict the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality, taking vaccination status into account. In this study, we assess their performance in Scotland.

We used the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 national data platform consisting of individual-level data for the population of Scotland (5.4 million residents). Primary care data were linked to reverse-transcription PCR virology testing, hospitalisation and mortality data. We assessed the discrimination and calibration of the QCovid 2 and 3 algorithms in predicting COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths between 8 December 2020 and 15 June 2021.

Our validation dataset comprised 465 058 individuals, aged 19–100. We found the following performance metrics (95% CIs) for QCovid 2 and 3: Harrell’s C 0.84 (0.82 to 0.86) for hospitalisation, and 0.92 (0.90 to 0.94) for death, observed-expected ratio of 0.24 for hospitalisation and 0.26 for death (ie, both the number of hospitalisations and the number of deaths were overestimated), and a Brier score of 0.0009 (0.00084 to 0.00096) for hospitalisation and 0.00036 (0.00032 to 0.0004) for death.

We found good discrimination of the QCovid 2 and 3 algorithms in Scotland, although performance was worse in higher age groups. Both the number of hospitalisations and the number of deaths were overestimated.

The United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study’s (UKCCS’s) matched cohort was established to examine the longer term morbidity and mortality of individuals previously diagnosed with cancer before 15 years of age, comparing future healthcare patterns in 5-year cancer survivors to baseline activity seen in age- and sex-matched individuals from the general population.

Predicated on a national childhood cancer case-control study conducted in the early 1990s (4430 cases, 9753 controls) in England, Scotland and Wales, the case population comprises 3125 cancer survivors (>5 years), and the control population 7156 age- and sex-matched individuals from the general population who did not have cancer as a child. Participants are now being followed up via linkage to national administrative healthcare databases (deaths, cancers and secondary care hospital activity).

Enabling the creation of cohorts with minimal selection bias and loss to follow-up, the original case-control study registered all newly diagnosed cases of childhood cancer and their corresponding controls, regardless of their family’s participation. Early findings based on the registered case population found marked survival variations with age and sex across subtypes and differences with deprivation among acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) survivors. More recently, comparing the health-activity patterns of the case and control populations revealed that survivors of childhood ALL experienced excess outpatient and inpatient activity across their teenage/young adult years. Adding to increased risks of cancer and death and involving most clinical specialties, excesses were not related to routine follow-up monitoring and showed no signs of diminishing over time.

With annual linkage updates, the UKCCS’s maturing population-based matched cohorts provide the foundation for tracking the health of individuals through their lifetime. Comparing the experience of childhood cancer survivors to that of unaffected general-population counterparts, this will include examining subsequent morbidity and mortality, secondary care hospital activity and the impact of deprivation on longer term outcomes.

Digital health is now routinely being applied in clinical care, and with a variety of clinician-facing systems available, healthcare organisations are increasingly required to make decisions about technology implementation and evaluation. However, few studies have examined how digital health research is prioritised, particularly research focused on clinician-facing decision support systems. This study aimed to identify criteria for prioritising digital health research, examine how these differ from criteria for prioritising traditional health research and determine priority decision support use cases for a collaborative implementation research programme.

Drawing on an interpretive listening model for priority setting and a stakeholder-driven approach, our prioritisation process involved stakeholder identification, eliciting decision support use case priorities from stakeholders, generating initial use case priorities and finalising preferred use cases based on consultations. In this qualitative study, online focus group session(s) were held with stakeholders, audiorecorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

Fifteen participants attended the online priority setting sessions. Criteria for prioritising digital health research fell into three themes, namely: public health benefit, health system-level factors and research process and feasibility. We identified criteria unique to digital health research as the availability of suitable governance frameworks, candidate technology’s alignment with other technologies in use,and the possibility of data-driven insights from health technology data. The final selected use cases were remote monitoring of patients with pulmonary conditions, sepsis detection and automated breast screening.

The criteria for determining digital health research priority areas are more nuanced than that of traditional health condition focused research and can neither be viewed solely through a clinical lens nor technological lens. As digital health research relies heavily on health technology implementation, digital health prioritisation criteria comprised enablers of successful technology implementation. Our prioritisation process could be applied to other settings and collaborative projects where research institutions partner with healthcare delivery organisations.